Burl

Asked and answered.

Rarely. I did know one paranoid schizophrenic who put all his money in one pocket and would blindly give to whatever. He thought that his giving was controlled by God. Got himself arrested when he could not pay for his groceries and knelt down in prayer at the checkout line. Mostly people are naturally selfish and find excuses to make themselves feel less guilty.

Paul, it’s always a pragmatic choice between self and others that varies by umpteen parameters. Is the person in a good mood? Is it raining? Angry? Tired? Hungry? Any person will randomly vary their response for no reason at all.

Another observation on this pericope is that it supports (not proof; only support) the historical validity of John. The original Jesus Project (and Ehrman) both consider passages that seem antithetical (called the difficult passages in Biblical Studies) as evidence of authenticity. The logic is if the book is a polemic or was invented, the authors would not include pericopes that did not support their belief in Jesus as the Son of God. The only reason for including the difficult passages is that they are part of an authentic accounting.

The apostles walk in on Jesus getting a massage and accuse him of hypocrisy. Jesus responds by explaining his time is short. The mention of the poor is not a sermon and should not be read as such. Personally I never leave the house without a few half-dollars, silver dollars and $2 bills and give to anyone who asks.

Paul, what is your personal reading of this text? You don’t have to agree with your reading. Just post what you think the author(s) meant in this pericope about the apostles objecting to the anointment of Jesus.

Pattaya, Thailand

What is your ‘line’, Paul? This line idea sounds much like what Jesus labeled ‘the leaven of the Pharisees’.

Theological hair-splitting, and only decipherable by someone who is already well-versed in western theology. We don’t do polemics here. Save that for Theologyweb.com. A friendly conversation will suffice.

No. You are mistaken.

Your incorrect interpretation of sin is a variety of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, Paul. Sin is the degree of impurity. It is the difference between God’s will and personal will. It can be an action, but can also also intention or empathy or a lack of love.

I thought the comments about the failure of the new atheism were spot on as well. People are naturally intuitive, curious and creative. Few crave a reductionist, cynical outlook.

Contemporary philosopherJames K.A. Smith in a wide-ranging conversation centering on Christianity.

No idea 😆

Namasté

Paul, I am 64 and my only income is a small disability check. I do what I can.

Just no formula answer for me. I do try to avoid the charity industry though.

I just do the best I can. But tell me more about this line of yours.

It’s an individual matter.

Ironic that you should write this on Remembrance Day. People are flawed, and considerably less divine than Jesus. Good Christians are always trying to be better, but sanctification is a life-long process.

Great Courses is awesome. It’s a stream on demand channel on the internet now. I used to listen to them on CD while driving. Were expensive but cheaper now.

No, I don’t think that is ever used as an excuse and I never heard of Christians being dissuaded from charity except those people who hate being accosted by panhandlers. Did that idea come from that abusive church you were raised in? What I do see is a lot of Christians full of false pride who are too vain to accept help from others. Really a shame.

Ehrman does a good job of what he does. Just not interesting enough for me to spend $25. I went through all his Great Courses a while back and recommend them.

Probably.